USPTO Patent Grants

By Dennis Crouch

With the sequester, the USPTO has slowed its operation somewhat over the past two months. As a result, fewer patents issued per week in May/June 2013 than in prior months. However, the Office is still on track to issue a record number of patents in 2013 — an approximate 5% increase over 2012. The recent spate of subject matter eligibility cases is not expected to have any discernible impact on this result. The following chart is updated through June 27, 2013 and shows the number of utility patents granted per calendar year with a projection for the second half of 2013 based upon the first-half returns.

88 thoughts on “USPTO Patent Grants

  1. LOL – Almost as hot and bothered as the 0rgy between Malcolm, Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan, and Vivika M.

    Oh wait…

  2. Do you know that there is no requirement that a patent must make things ‘better?’

    Do you know when you put “better” in quotes like you just did, Tr0llboy, it renders your rhetorical question meaningless?

  3. a little nibbling at the far edges of patentable subject matter.

    Ah, how the tunes change.

    Remember this classic quote: “The Court’s analysis [in Prometheus] creates a framework for patent eligibility in which almost any method claim can be invalidated”?

    Or this one: “This SCOTUS decision is a disaster for all of patent law and future innovation within the USA.” (< --regular patentlyo commenter and j-nk patent cheerleader "stepback")

    Eric Guttag: "those 9 technology-challenged Justices (also too arrogant as well as ignorant) have just created a new jurisprudential “disaster” in our area of the law that will likely cost us more American jobs" (<---LOL)

    And of course there's Big Gene Quinn himself: "The sky is falling! Those who feel the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. is terrible are right, although many won’t likely fully apprehend the gravity of the situation at first. Those in the biotech, medical diagnostics and pharmaceutical industries have just been taken out behind the woodshed and summarily executed by the Supreme Court this morning. An enormous number of patents will now have no enforceable claims. Hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate value has been erased. "

    By the way, if you want to see a classic example of an echo chamber in full circle jerk mode, check out this thread:

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-prometheus/id=22920/

    The lovefest between anon, EG, and Gene is about as hot and bothered as it can possible get. Echolicious! Three peabrains in a pod.

  4. OK, Hawk_Eye, I am thinking about quality not quantity.

    Now what?

    Rewrite the law?

    Define quality? Doesn’t ‘quality’ mean meeting the law? If you have a patent that does not meet the law, have you taken advantage of the mechanisms for revoking the patent, or like certain others, do you merely want to QQ about it and try to tear down the entire patent system?

    I don’t think that you understand the non-linearity of innovation. Sure there are patents out there that are not of ‘high quality.’ So what? If the patent covers something that does not work or that is not wanted, what exactly is the harm? Do you know that ‘promote’ has as part of its historical base meaning the tie to spread the word (rather than merely advance the state of the art)? Do you know that there is no requirement that a patent must make things ‘better?’ Does your idea of ‘quality’ include this notion of ‘linear advance’ that is but a fallacy of how innovation actually works?

  5. I wonder how many of the patent grants are as bad as this one; patentlyfalse.wordpress.com

    Need to think about quality not quantity.

  6. What’s with your assumptions all to the negative?

    heavyhanded? dickish? assuming? angry?

    I think you need to lighten up. Just because I am direct and to the point (and correct), does not mean any of those things that YOU are assuming.

    I need not ask for clarity as I provided clarity.

    If you think I misstated something, please, by all means point that out.

    Thanks

  7. I did not assume he missed the points. His statement plainly indicates he missed the points.

    I am not angry at all. I was in fact being pleasant and guiding the wayward chap to be better informed. A kindness, really.

  8. Funny how that works.
    Funny how that happens when all that has been accomplished is a little nibbling at the far edges of patentable subject matter.

  9. Dennis: The recent spate of subject matter eligibility cases is not expected to have any discernible impact on this result.

    Funny how that works.

  10. There are many software patents in Europe. You have not found a good way to try to distinguish between software and hardware because their is no way.

    And, software innovation in Europe is a joke compared to the U.S.A. Just compare the sales numbers. Joke.

    And, Europeans are nothing but followers by and large. The only countries you have that innovate are Germany and the U.K. both with very strong patent systems.

  11. More of the ‘goodies’ from Malcolm’s book of FAIL:

    The Supreme Court wisely held that 101 would suffice.

    LOL – who was one that advocated otherwise with a WHATEVER mentality? (that would be Malcolm)

    Double LOL – who JUST RECENTLY delved back into the WHATEVER mentality on a discussion of 101 and tried to conflate the discussion with 103? (that would be Malcolm)

    Triple LOL – who recently was wrong about a Supreme Court case and tried to argue a 102/103 timing into the 101 judicial exception of product of nature? (that would be Malcolm)

    Wrong prior to Prometheus and moved the goalposts, wrong after Prometheus and moved to the same lame tactics of conflation, and STILL wrong about and STILL does not have the nuts to admit that he was wrong and that I was right.

    Yet here we have Eric and Gene still bemoaning an easily applied and predictable holding in a well-written and well-reasoned decision.

    LOL – so ‘well-written and well-reasoned’ that when he FINALLY attempted a substantive squaring of Prometheus with the precedent case most on point, Malcolm tossed his pet theory into a bonfire of his own making. There has been only a single entity anywhere that has attempted to use those adjectives for the Prometheus decision.

    Mmmmmm, toasty.

  12. EU do not have software patents. Yet software innovation in europe is as good as in US. (Hint: its about sharing the knowlege, FLOSS+net is therefor more effective then patent system)

  13. Nope.

    If invalidation or narrowing of such claim cost MILIONS of dolars, then you can forget about any meaningfull correlation. Because you can not even begin to estimate how many invalidation would be found if it was cheaper.

    (Yes, I do suggest that most invalid/wrongly issued patents wont ever reach court room… That is just too costly for defendant/infriger…)

    Some meaningfull metrics?

    1) How many companies settle when they DO FIND good defenses in light of 101, 102, 103, 112, etc. (How many think they would win if they wanted to spent that moneys)

    2) How many companies settle, and then patentee bring case to ITC against its competition (with settlement as fulfilment for “home industry”)

    3) How many patents that get invalidated are issued AFTER case law changed (or what ever you call situation when SC or FC make some important decision, and USPTO should change its guidelines for examiners)

    4) How many cases could be executed cheaper by simply rearanging schedules. (So that most expensive things are done at the end of trial, etc.)

    But hey, we do have FTC investigating “NPE” doings. We will get reliable data.

  14. You should state why you think the 2nd patent gets the PTA same as the first maybe? And also note that the terminal disclaimer, if you drafted it properly or used a common template, states that the 2nd patent should expire along with the first.

    link to trwiplaw.com

    Or at least that’s what it looks like.

  15. Patent eligibility needs to be greatly expanded, not reduced. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself. If more things were patentable, technological innovation would explode in America. The ancient Romans and Greeks never had patents, so they never had any technological innovation. Why more people do not understand this simple notion is incredibly mind-boggling and beyond belief. This lack of understanding patents defies logic and common sense. The fashion apparel industry and food cuisine do not have the benefit of patents, and consequently these industries never have any innovation whatsoever – These fields have been mired in stagnation for centuries due to the lack of patent protection.

  16. We asked for

    LOL – who is ‘we?’ You, your svckpuppets and the little circle club that play the games of feigned ignorance and misstatements as much as you?

    LOL. Funny? yes – just not in the way that you are thinking.

  17. This is just pure cr-p, but it’s by no means an unusual argument to make

    LOL – the ONLY person ever to say this was you Malcolm (and yes, I am including your svckpuppets Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan and Vivika M as you). What’s that word you love so much? dissembling?

    LOL – it fits you just as much as the other word of choice: hypocrite.

  18. Ned,

    Are you equally concerned with type I and type II errors?

    Are you aware of the clandestine (and largely undocumented) ‘inner programs’ at the Office that skewed reviews against allowances, but made no attempt to correct faulty rejections – and which directly led to the massive backlogs in other queues of work at the Office?

    Let’s include those metrics in compensation too – wouldn’t you agree?

  19. The fact that you believe you can justify what you wrote to Kalpana and that you believe that I did not make a fair point about you being a pr*ck is just further evidence of your s0ci0pathy

    You really have gone off the deep end Malcolm.

    Tell me – explicitly and in legal terms – what concerning my response to Kalpana at 6:13 is even remotely incorrect.

    Give me ONE example.

    Or will this be like when I ask you to provide a single valid example from your accusation that I have 1ied about you that you turn tale and run away?

    The tendency of yours to accuse that which you do is captured vividly on these pages (and yes they are archived, so even the ‘very busy’ people running multi-million dollar law firms can find plenty of examples of your disingenuous B$).

    Even from other worlds.

  20. We both know

    LOL – we both know what, exactly, Malcolm?

    You have not found the NUTS yet to admit a simple fact.

    Still have not seen from you those simple words: “anon was right.”

    The board has had to put up with 21,000 other mewling QQ words from you. But those three have not appeared.

    LOL.

  21. You prosecute for 15 years, and are finally allowed a 1st patent with a 3 year term adjustment.

    How is that accomplished?

    “in the interest of justice” – I think you need a better basis in law.

  22. If it’s not ok to ask an unrelated patent prosecution question on this post’s comment thread, please stop reading.

    Here are the facts: You prosecute for 15 years, and are finally allowed a 1st patent with a 3 year term adjustment. You never file a reissue, but timely file a continuation with similar but very slightly broader claims, and, in just over 2 years those broader claims issue, with terminal disclaimer, as a non-obvious double patent of the 1st patent, but with a term adjustment of only one week instead of 3 years.

    Now you’d like to petition USPTO within two months of issue of the 2nd patent, to ask that, in the interest of justice, the 2nd patent’s term be extended out as long as the term of the 1st patent.

    Question: Any thoughts on whether such a petition has any chance of success, and what you might say in it?

  23. Oh yes, and voter fraud! Another issue of great concern to the same class of folks who are concerned about the horrifying societal effects of minimum wage, paid sick leave, post-patent grant review procedures, and the available of inequitable conduct defense for patent infringement.

    link to thinkprogress.org

  24. Tr0llboy: There may be worthwhile thoughts in there

    No kidding, pr*ck.

    , but in NO WAY have you expressed any such worthwhile thoughts in anything approaching a civil or respectful tone anytime within the last couple of years.

    It doesn’t matter what tone I take, pr*ck. Your “response” will be to repeat the same old dissembling horsesh*t. That’s because my “worthwhile” thoughts go right to the core of the bullsh*t that you, Eric, Gene and others have been slinging non-stop since, what, LabCorp? Probably earlier.

    this beatdown of you could have been avoided.

    LOL. So you’re not going to share your beliefs with us, Tr0llboy? About this topic which means so much to you and is so close to your heart? What exactly is the problem? Just state your answers for everyone in black and white so we can all see them. I don’t see why that is so difficult for such an otherwise outspoken character.

    I got the [Myriad] decision right

    Look, Tr0llboy, if you believe that to be true, then just be happy about it. We both know it doesn’t happen that often.

  25. That is one very large CRP of hooey from you Malcolm.

    There may be worthwhile thoughts in there, but in NO WAY have you expressed any such worthwhile thoughts in anything approaching a civil or respectful tone anytime within the last couple of years.

    You should really try to express your thoughts with respect without your usual misrepresentations of fact, of law and of what others post – and most definitely not to your mischaracterizations as you put forth above. My demands are anything BUT impossible to meet, as long ago I outlined what was needed for quality blogging and my recommendations stand (and stand in sharp contrast to what you ACTUALLY do).

    I have always said that you have a large degree of control – don’t CRP and I won’t rub your nose in your own CRP. It is not the differences of opinion that is the CRP, but the way you go about those differences with your cheap, stale, banal, and deceptive tactics.

    And yes, even after 21,000 words on the Myriad decision, you have YET gotten the nuts to admit to the obvious FACT that I got the decision right and you got the decision wrong. If you were ‘so honest and straight forward’ this beatdown of you could have been avoided.

    The plain and simple fact is that you are NOT honest. Quite in fact you deserve the beatdowns you get and that you refuse to change and address things in any semblance of intellectual honesty.

    As I said the quality improvement picture is in your hands.

  26. Stop misepresenting the facts, the law and what others post

    Again, Tr0llboy, because “misrepresenting the facts” and “the law” or “what others post” is simply (1) disagreeing with you; (2) asking you to explain what the f you are talking about; or (3) failing to recite your talking points (see, e.g., this thread), then your demands are impossible to meet.

    This is why you’re basically just a blogtroll. Do you get that yet? I’m pretty sure you do.

    Upthread I mentioned that you believe that the “judicial exceptions” (e.g., prohibitions on patenting certain “processes”, in spite of the failure of 35 USC 101 to expressly disallow patents on those “processes”, e.g., a purely mental process such as a novel, non-obvious thought) are unconstitutional. Is that an accurate statement of your belief? If not, please clarify what you believe about the eligiblity of purely mental processes. Let everyone know. If you’ve got something to hide or feel embarassed about expressing your beliefs on that subject, that’s okay. Just refuse to answer or insult me if that makes you feel more comfortable.

    My belief is that the judicial exceptions are reasonable interpretations of the statute. I also believe that if any future version of our Supreme Court were ever to hold that purely mental processes were eligible for patenting, then Congress would immediately correct that. Likewise with any substantial reversal of the Prometheus decision, which merely holds that appending trivial but eligible subject matter to a mental process is not (it’s easy to understand why — ask me to explain it to you again). In that regard, the incessant whining by the patent t–b-ggers about the judicial exceptions is a purely academic exercise and not even an interesting one. What do you suppose you are accomplishing? Certainly you’ve accomplished nothing thus far except to make yourselves look like whining buffoons. Record numbers of patent grants aren’t enough?

    Anyway, let’s hear your thoughts regarding the questions above. Go ahead, Tr0llboy. Make my day.

  27. 72% of all posts on this thread today are from or about Malcolm.

    Yet another fine trainwreck you have gotten into.

  28. link to ipwatchdog.com

    Gene Quinn’s Greatest Hits, Part I:

    You don’t hear the innovative start-ups and small businesses complaining about the patent system

    Right, it’s only the “la zy” people and “copiers” who complain when they get those threatening letters from bottom-faeding patent attorneys from Texas … oops, I meant threatening letters from “innovators”.

    Is there litigation abuse associated with the enforcement of patent rights? Yes. Does that have anything to do with the patent system? No.

    He actually said that? Too funny.

    if President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Edison would disagree with an innovation related policy statement or position why would you even give the thought passing consideration?

    Deep thoughts, Gene. Really persuasive stuff there.

    to those who think I am nothing more than a patent apol0gist, you are right.

    LOL!

  29. You asked? I gave it – you ignored it.

    Now you want to crab about it?

    How about this: Stop ignoring the points as I make them. Stop misepresenting the facts, the law and what others post?

    You know, the very same things I have asked all along.

    And that is NOT funny that you are such a pr1ck about it.

  30. The Heritage Foundation on Patent Reform:

    link to patentdocs.org

    Mr, Grossman asks the President to “strictly limit” the window within which a patent could be challenged, and the parties that would be allowed to initiate such a challenge, under any new post-grant review process. He contends that “[w]ithout these protections, additional post-grant review procedures are likely to weaken property rights without significantly reducing litigation.” Next, Mr. Grossman tackles the inequitable conduct doctrine, advising that “the doctrine’s great costs and limited deterrent value counsel its elimination or restriction.”

    Yes, truly important “fixes” there: make it more dificult for people targeted by patent trolls to invalidate the patents and/or render them unenforceable. I wonder what other great ideas the Heritage Foundation has? Oh, here’s one: abolish the minimum wage.

    link to dangerousminds.net

    Awesome! And then we just need to adopt Richard Epstein’s (another Heritage Foundation grifter) proposal to ditch paid sick leave. Only then can the “job creators” and “innovators” get the money they so richly (LOL) deserve. Well, at least more of it. They’ll never get it all, of course. But they’ll never stop trying either.

  31. It would be interesting how many asserted patents end up having at least one claim invalidated or narrowed. This would be a good metric to gauge the performance of the PTO and the bonus, or lack thereof, of management including directors.

    Imagine if a director got his entire compensation using such a metric?

  32. Go back and see if you can pick up the context of the comments.

    We asked for the “context” in real time, Tr0llboy. You attempted to provide the “context”. Now *that* was funny.

  33. Nice misstatementd (as usual Malcolm).

    Go back and see if you can pick up the context of the comments.

    Let’s see if you can handle just a touch of intellectual honesty.

    (I won’t be holding my breath).

  34. an —hole blogtroll you are

    LOL – there you go again with that accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do.

    Your Mommy must be so ecstatic.

  35. Nice rant Malcolm.

    But try this time in English. Speak slowly. Comeplete your thoughts. Enunciate. And above all else, breathe.

    LOL

  36. you are not making a point.

    The point is that you’re a pr*ck, Tr0llboy.

    The fact that you believe you can justify what you wrote to Kalpana and that you believe that I did not make a fair point about you being a pr*ck is just further evidence of your s0ci0pathy. Carry on, Tr0llboy. And by all means report your latest “takedown” to your hero, Gene Quinn. I’m sure he appreciates what you’re doing. Right? I mean, you did it for The Team. You did a good thing. Kalpana “deserved it.” Right? Please let Gene know about this little victory and then let everyone here know what your mentor thinks of your latest blow in the eternal war against the “anti-patent” forces of evil.

  37. Social interactions skilled

    The idea of Tr0llboy disparaging another human being for lacking “social interactions” is pretty funny. Keep the hits coming, Tr0llboy. Got any more weird racial “jokes” to share with everyone today, Tr0llboy?

  38. do you even read the rants you post on this topic?

    You’re referring to the topic of what an —hole blogtroll you are? I just write them, Tr0llboy. Or more accurately, they write themselves.

  39. the points missed

    Right. Kalpana doesn’t “understand the law” because he failed to recite Tr0llboy’s script. Why, only someone who has swallowed “anti-patent” propaganda would make such a statement without reciting Tr0llboy’s script.

    Like I said, Tr0llboy: you really are an unbelievable pr*ck. Get help.

  40. you do not believe in the patent system

    I wonder how you got this impression. Was it the aliens in your fillings who told you this? Or is it just the usual blogtroll wingnut “logic” where someone who disagrees with certain aspects of an American system (like the patent system) must secretly want to destroy the whole thing and the entire country with it?

    Please tell everyone, Tr0llboy, how you know that I “do not believe in the patent system”? Is it because I find the tactics of patent fluffers like yourself dishonest and based in greed and/or paranoia and/or ignorance? Exactly what is the evidence for my lack of “belief” in the “patent system”?

    Rest assured, Tr0llboy: I’m not a True Believer like you who is happy to fluff every patent that comes before him (unless it’s a “bio” patent, of course!) or gleefully watch while someone else does the fluffing. But very few people are possessed of your particularly potent brand of Patent Lovin’ Predeliction. We can all be very, very grateful for that.

  41. LOL – please stop now Malcolm and put the shovel down before you start imagining things with 12 year old Chinese boys like you have done in the past.

  42. Thankfully, I’m not alone and, even better, my targets are big, real, and have a tendency to be completely unaware of how they are perceived by the people whose money they want to take away.

    LOL – that you share your nice shiny hat with Keeping It Real, Robert, Francis, Shrivan and Vivika M., there is no doubt.

    But we both know that you do not believe in the patent system, and it is that work (not your deception and attempted destruction work) that I am referencing.

    We both knew that, but you cannot help yourself from being a pr1ck about it. Par for the course.

  43. you can believe in what you are doing

    Sort of like Tr0llboy believes that he’s battling ‘anti-patent” forces, funded by the “Left and the Right” that are trying to replace the American patent system with a Copiers Incentive Progam. Oh, and something about Jane Fonda.

    Not everyone can be a paladin for the One True Cause like you, Tr0llboy. Suffice it to say that I do believe what I’m doing. Thankfully, I’m not alone and, even better, my targets are big, real, and have a tendency to be completely unaware of how they are perceived by the people whose money they want to take away.

  44. Tr0llboy: You appear not to be familiar with law

    LOL. Nothing that Kalpana said would give that impression to anyone on earth except a professional patent t–bagger like yourself.

    Let me guess, Tr0llboy: Kalpana’s ignorance of the law was “implicit” in what he “left out” of his comment? Isn’t that how you usually roll? You really are an unbelievable prxck.

  45. it’s a “bad thing” to give a bloated whining crybaby more candy just because they threaten to cry louder.

    You are doing that self-projecting thing again.

    As I said: you need to get into a line of work that you can believe in what you are doing. This dissonance is like a cancer eating your soul and making you into a foul person.

    Get out while you can.

  46. Tr0llboy: you act like that is supposed to be a bad thing…

    Gene and NWPA are entitled to be as greedy as they want to be. But yes, generally speaking it’s a “bad thing” to give a bloated whining crybaby more candy just because they threaten to cry louder.

    Here’s Eric Guttag, the quintessential Diehrbot, still pounding sand over Prometheus:

    despite on the “hemming and hawing” to the contrary, the ruling in Mayo Collaborative Services cannot be squared with this “fundamental standard” from Diehr which has caused utter “chaos” in the patent bar, as well as the Federal Circuit

    This is just pure cr-p, but it’s by no means an unusual argument to make over at Patent Troll Lovers Forevah. But Eric is desperate, right? Because he’s poor. He’s scraping by. Just like Gene. These guys need some patents. More specifically, they need some claims granted that recite (1) doing something old, and (2) thinking a new thought about the result. And they are entitled to those patents because … Justice Breyer is an —hole? Is that the argument? It’s the best argument I’ve ever heard Guttag make, which obviously is saying very very little about the quality of the argument.

    Nobody who wasn’t snorting the richest, dankest patent t–b-gger crack thought that Prometheus’ would be able to get away with enforcing their patent. But neither Eric, nor Gene nor Kevin could ever bring themselves to discuss what they believed should happen if such claims are deemed eligible. The government’s attorneys (and many other commenters) could see the inevitable pressure that would be put on 103 and so they suggested that the printed matter doctrine (or an expansion of it) would suffice to prevent the granting of claims that would turn practitioners of the prior art into infringers when those practitioners began thinking about a new fact. The Supreme Court wisely held that 101 would suffice.

    Yet here we have Eric and Gene still bemoaning an easily applied and predictable holding in a well-written and well-reasoned decision. Will they ever give up? It’s highly doubtful. Heck, they’ve got deep thinkers like Les and Tr0llboy further out in the woods arguing that purely mental processes should be protectable by patents because the judicial exceptions are “unconstitutional”. Or something.

    These people have money, more money than almost everybody in this country. But that’s not enough, apparently. You see, there are “copiers” all over the place — probably in your neighborhood — and some of their money should be siphoned into the hands of the wise rich lawyers who know how to “monetize” patents, which is the Best Thing Evah for America.

    If only more people understood these simple truths about the awesomeness of every patent, things would be so much better. But it’s so hard to get The Word out with these relentless, baseless “attacks” on patents coming from the “Left and the Right”, not to mention the reams of information that the aliens transmit to Tr0llboy’s fillings every day.

  47. 1iars have that problem – they think everyone is 1ying.

    Malcolm’s cheap rhetorical tool of accuse-others-of-that-which-he-does is also well known, and well, obvious.

  48. I don’t see you making an actual point

    I’m pretty sure you see the point, Tr0llboy. If you’re squinting, maybe you need more light. Doesn’t your light saber have a brightness switch?

  49. Perhaps MM, but when I want more and more, I don’t lie in law journal articles.

    Perhaps your problem is that you are using projection and assuming that we are intellectual dishonest like you.

  50. They just want more of them. All. The. Time.

    LOL – you act like that is supposed to be a bad thing…

    You really need to get into a profession that you can believe in the work that you are supposed to do.

  51. One has to wonder about guys like NWPA and Gene Quinn who apparently still can’t get allowed claims.

    Oh, they can get allowed claims. They just want more of them. All. The. Time.

  52. Tr0llboy is super crabby today! Watch out. He will “devastate” you. There’s really nothing you can do or say to insulate yourself from his withering attacks so just bend over and take one. For America.

  53. McCracken, you have been slackin.
    Funny gifs are what we need
    Not your positions fake
    Your posts have gone to seed
    Some advice, you need to take:

    Know your limitations.

  54. Congress is incompetant for not getting the budget done. This will increase PTA calculations due to delay from the PTO. It will slow economic investment because you really can’t make SEC statements accurately without puffery until the patent is granted. While large companies may not care as much, smaller companies do. Thus the sequester is have a real but insideous impact on the economy and this is just one of the ways.
    Mercedes

  55. ‘good times’ appears to be the same person that impersonated ‘greedy lawyers’ in a stint of posts awhile back.

    The same gambit of ‘ha, you have to love the crooked system, I’m an insider and I am admitting how bad it is’ will suffer the same fate. The lack of knowledge of how the system works and the negative ASSumptions of failure on the part of advocates of the system belie the falsehood and deception.

    Perhaps we have another volunteer to find that one single example of a modern advanced country who has seen the light and chucked all IP laws and has reached Nirvana.

  56. Now that it’s the allowance office rather than the rejection office, my life is 1000 times easier. One has to wonder about guys like NWPA and Gene Quinn who apparently still can’t get allowed claims. What the heck are they doing?

  57. The answer arises that ALL of them are subject to litigation and possible subsequent invalidation.

    You are aware that litigation is the enforcement mechanism for patents, right? You appear not to be familiar with law and appear to be reacting to the anti-patent drumbeat that someone trying to enforce their patent right must be a bad thing.

    As to subjecting patents to possible invalidation, you appear again to be unfamiliar with law and seem to think that a common defense must mean that the infringer is always right.

    I suggest that you become a bit more knowledgeable about patent law and a bit less susceptible to the anti-patent propaganda dousing the general public.

  58. The question arises how many of the granted patents would be subjected to litigation and subsequent invalidation.

  59. Time to repeal sequestration — it is just a head wind on the economy, reduces revenues and thereby increases the deficit.

  60. It looks like by about 2017 the number of yearly grants will have doubled.

    Prediction for 2017: unemployment rates in the US will remain well below pre-recession levels. The US population size will remain roughly the same. A record number of patent infringement suits will be filed and a record number of ordinary people who have never seen a patent will receive a letter accusing them of patent infringement. Those letters will be signed by someone in the top 1% income bracket. Good times.

    link to calculatedriskblog.com

  61. Fyi, Steph Kennedy at IP Troll Tracker has created a potentially useful website for consolidating threatening letters from patent trolls:

    link to thatpatenttool.com

    I notice mention at the site of Jim Logan’s junk patent on audio information dissemination (8,112,504, among others). This is the one where Logan imagined a personal audio device that could “interact with the internet and your preferences to pull down, to your personal player, all the personal stuff you wanted to listen to” and basically just claimed that. And the USPTO, of course, happily bent over and took his money.

    Good article here:

    link to tpr.org

Comments are closed.